Rogerian argument

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Carl R. Rogers
Cogito ergo sum
Logic and rhetoric
Icon logic.svg
Key articles
General logic
Bad logic

A Rogerian argument is a type of argument in which one tries to seek a middle ground between two opposing arguments rather than trying to dictate a "winner" unlike in a traditional Aristotelian argument.[1] This kind of argument is largely inspired by the 20th-century American psychologist Carl Rogers.Wikipedia One may "win" in a Rogerian argument by successfully convincing the opponent to consider alternative arguments.[2]

Alternative name[edit]

  • Rogerian rhetoric

Typical usage in argument[edit]

  1. Person 1: Raises argument
  2. Person 2: Raises argument
  3. Person 1 or 2: Creates argument , a 'compromise' of and that typically contains premises from both and
  4. Person 1 or 2: Argues argument typically using the combined premises of and

As rhetoric versus an argument[edit]

Suppose that the Rogerian argument technique is being used on two arguments, and , that are disjoint. That is, . Then, it is impossible to have a formal argument using Rogerian argument techniques; there are no common premises. At this point, the purpose of deploying Rogerian rhetoric is more analogous to a negotiation medium than an argument technique whose purpose is to simply understand the opposing argument rather than trying to change it.[3]

See also[edit]